area but not the other so they're still ton the search. >> commissioner campagnoli. >> so those are 6 placements. >> so there's 4 at the momentum that have finished their inspectors or are waiting for a sound test. because it's our fault that to hold them up is not fair and again, we checked with the city attorney we're not breaking any laws it's our standard practice to put a d b number into a sound test to let the venue know whether they're in violation of that or not but in lou of having the person not being available the standard is can i hear it outside or not.

to be honest that's how the police did it before there was a entertainment commission. they did a have sound officer but he often didn't have a meter so i guess i reiterate that so you feel somewhat comfortable we're not suggesting permits with no sound levels set we're setting a high bar but not holding up the process and we'll be able to bring that down >> so in keeping with that and the fact we have civil certificates to serve the public and if something is our fault i'd like to move that we issue the 6 permits place of entertainment permits until such time as the entertainment commission has a sound officer.

that's my motion >> there's a motion is there a second. >> second. >> all right. any further discussion about this those are permits we've already heard their pending. >> that's right. >> we've gotten police and fire. >> so the enforcement of the police would be the one to enforce it so they come to you and say we've heard it. >> or the neighbors and. >> and you've you - >> ourself at staff level going and doing testing when we needed to or investigating or some of

the inspectors have sauftd in the past but, of course, this is not going to put us at risk i don't believe it's pitting the public at risk in any way it's just making there's no number which is what a sound test is helpful for its a permit holder is really assisted in the most part. every other party involved hearing the sound will respond to the same regardless >> has b there ever been a d b set louder than than the sound levels. >> no. >> i'm wondering what the point is to allow them. >> to know what the sound is

sxaip the venue. >> if base becomes a problem we often ask sound officers will designate a megahertz level for the base or inform the occupant about better sound proofing. things like that. that will come to us when we get the complaints and go ahead and staff is perfectly capable of doing that without the officer but they need the complaint first so the staff will deal with it when it kingdoms >> so there's a motion and second to allow for our staff to go ahead and issue permits pending the hiring of a actual

sound inspector. so can we take some public comment on this. anyone have an opinion. seeing one. >> good evening commissions i'm just heard, you know, commissioners talk about this issue. it's a process in order to get somebody appointed to, you know, have the ability to do the sound test. i'm wondering if we could consider outsourcing it for the time being until someone can come in like a third party for the action so to speak and get those permits so there's some degree of measurement. i kind of look at an example like someone has a do you have a urine and blood test there's some degree of measurement. i think if someone later

contests something maybe we can wait until we get someone open the team like bob has done for so many years >> thank any public comment on this item?. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners you guys have any more thoughts on this before we take a vote. it doesn't look like it. let's take a vote >> commissioner campagnoli. commissioner lee. commissioner joseph. commissioner hyde commissioner akers. president at an >> thank you. >> with that the motion passes. i know there are a cough other commissioner comments like commissioner hyde and commissioner akers >> yeah. my comment is happy holiday to everyone and since we're notd not 0 going into the

year with another meeting. i'm calling on the commission to ladder and think about the best ways to be pro-active in our jobs here as not only regulators but promoter of night life and make sure that when things are happening in the city we're aware of them and so we do take an active really. i think we do a really good job and hope we continue to move forward with that. commissioner akers >> my comment is minor. i notice that audry joseph is needed as vice chair >> good eyes. i was just clarifying because a

there's two vice chairs >> thank you for pointing out. any other commissioner convicting that he that i on commission questions or comments >> let's move on to item 8 for new agenda items. one thing we want to put on january 7th agenda is a hearing on 10 b i believe they commissioner commissioner hyde vice president commissioner hyde is lining up speakers and supervisor avalos is asking for information >> the police want to come and give a presentation on 10 b we're going to also have the sheriff's department here and then possibly a committee will be asked to speak. we can't put them on the agenda

but we may ask them to speak >> anyone out there in the public have an opinion about 10 b please come out to our january 7th meeting. any other new agenda items. for the future agenda meeting. all right. any public comment about our future agenda meeting. i believe that brings us to the i understand of our meeting. this meeting is

>> the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission will now come to order. >> i would like to extend a welcome to the newest commissioner, mr. peter king i was not here for the last hearing and so i just want to extend my personal welcome and glad you are aboard. >> thank you very much, madam chair and it is good to be here and i am enjoying on being on

the commission and i am looking forward to serving you and the other members as well. >> and we look forward to you. >> any way, roll call. commissioner king? >> here. >> commissioner hur is excused, as is vice chair renne, he is also excused. commissioner andrews. >> here. >> and with that we have a quorum and we will proceed with the day's business. is there any public comment. are there any matters before we move ahead on the agenda? >> first up, the discussion and possible action on draft amendment, to the sunshine

ordinance regulation 67.33-1 director st croix. >> expanding the number of ways that folks that have to file the sunshine ordinance declarations and the state ethics declarations currently they have to be filed at the office in paper fork. we are expanding this to allow them to send fax or e-mail or regular mail in order to safety that obligation and this will make it easier for folks to file those forms on a timely basis. additionally, we are authorizing the commission to set up a format for all electronic filing in the future. we don't have a platform for the electronic filing for these two forms yet. but we plan to at some point. as we generally are moving toward all electronic filing

for the things that we do. i would just like to say that anything that we can do to make the filing for candidate and their staff easier, i think is an important... >> these actually effect the city, office holders and city employees who have to file these. >> right. >> i agree with with mr. st. croix that this is something that is overdue in regard to all city activities that allow for electronic use of things rather than get us out of the paper age, so that it is certainly a good idea. >> i have observation which of what must be a typo or a

mistake. in regards to the attachment, and the form for the certificate of ethics training. that is involved and attached and this died and i believe that there is a mistake, in the first bullet point, where it says please review the following to determine when you must complete the training. it says if you are completing training in 2013 you must complete your ethics training within two years of your last training and here is where i think that the mistake is, for example, if you are satisfied in your training on march 3, 2013, you must complete another ethics training session by march second, 2014 and that is a contradiction. if it says that you have two years that should be, you must complete another ethics training session by march second 2015. and i think that should... and

>> we will change it. >> okay. >> i figured this is an update. >> it is an update, the one that i filled out which is the one from before and actually had it correct for two years. the problems were not with the forms just historically this one. >> any public comment on this matter? >> you can actually if you want to adopt them in a block. >> do i have a motion? do we need a motion that? do i hear a motion to adopt both of these changes? >> so moved. >> i second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> aye.

>> okay. and those two are passed and we move on to the next one. >> okay. >> the next draft regulation >> all right there are four proposed changes here. and what we are trying to do is elected official whose travel are required, sorry. >> sorry to interrupt, the city attorney, and i want to make sure that we took the public comment on the last items? >> we did and there was no public comment. and seeing that there is only one member of the audience, i did not ask for additional public comment. >> thank you very much. >> so elected officials have to file and what the costs going to be and this is one of the requirements that we get a lot of questions about from the

elected officials and the staffs and so we thought that if we would put the advice that we generally get them in the actual words and regulations it might make it easier to follow through these requirements. and so, the first discussion point is tracks the two changes that we just adopted and again, this one can be filed not only in person but either by e-mail, regular mail or fax. >> if the individuals contribute to the cost of the trip, we always tell the officials to file a single form for all of the donor and we just put that practice into writing and the third decision

point is basically i sort of follow the money. and frequently outside of the organizations, will donate to a for example, a sister city, committee. and in order to help defray the cost of these travels, and so we consider the original giver of the money toward the trip to be the source of those funds and not the intermediatary committee. and so when the elected official accepts travel, and in these situations, they have to report where the original source of the money was, or is. and then the last point is also, very simple, because of the elected officials must report the cost of their trip before they go, frequently they have to use estimates. and so, what we have already allowed them to do is upon returning from the trip when they have the exact figures is to amend their report so that it reflects the amount numbers

rather than the estimated numbers and again, this is a current practice and we are just putting it into words. >> all right, if i may just add a couple of things. and actually director st. croix was talking about agenda item number 6, and not number five. and with respect to the regulations, and the subsection c, the staff has is suggesting a couple of amendments to that, and one is on the second line, of on page 3, under one. and we suggest using the word may rather than shall. so that it reads a contradiction reads in whole or in part to fund the trip from

the repitore to the elected official may constitute a gift for the purposes of the pra and the conduct code. and there are also instances where they would not be deemed as gift and we want to make that clear. we also want to add a sentence just to make clear that this is what is in the state law right now and so the sentence that we would like to add at the end of the sentence is except for sbpc regulation and regulation 9845 and the non-profit organization funding the trip if not the true source of a foot travel if it is merely an intermediatary for the contribution. and i apologize for skipping an agenda item. >> we will go back to. >> but since we are discussing this aspect, shall we, this

particular change, on this decision point and commissioners. i think that it is desirable and certainly it is greater guidance looks very guidance and necessary guidance to someone who is in this position and so i would favor it. >> okay. >> and again, you can do the fourth. and this is to send off if you want to. >> and i think that is anything that makes it easier, for elected officials candidates, staff, to do something, i think that that is something that we should always try to incorporate. any comment, any public comment on this matter? >> hearing none, now, do we want to cover the other, there are four decisions. >> if we make a motion to adopt

all four? >> okay, all right. >> and the staff suggests changes. >> do i hear a motion to that effect? >> i move that we adopt these four decision points with the recommended staff changes. >> i second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> now, we will go back to the draft regulation having to do with the contract. >> okay. so, certain people who have contracts with the city that are less than six months old, and people who are seeking contracts with the city, are prohibited from making contributions to political candidates, for local office. and so it is incumbent upon the candidates to try to figure out who among their contributers are not allowed to make these, you know? and to not take these

contributions. people who are band from making contributions are also not supposed to make them into the law. >> some candidates are using a disclaimer on the contribution forms and that say, if you have a contract with the city, that is less than 6 months old or if you are in negotiations on a contract you may not make contributions. so you have to check off a box that says i am not one of these people. this will, this may be able to give the candidate some measure of having to do the due diligence and it is difficult to know and weed out who the contributers that should not be making contributions. and it is not mandatory, but we feel that it will be helpful to candidates and the contributers if they violate the law. >> the ownness is also on the contractor itself.

>> and it was a contribution, and the candidate who takes it. >> they are both liability. >> and they share, and so this essentially would, put those people, and potentially in that situation, where they should not be making a contribution. now, give them the knowledge, you should not do this. and someone who has got a contract with the city is much more likely to know it than the people that they are making the contributions to. so we are giving some measure of relief to candidates, who used this language in order to help the contributers who may be in this category. >> and this would be on all of the or any kind of printed material? all printed material, and if they are soliciting it. >> well, this could be on, and again as the director st. croix said that this is not mandatory

and although, many committee and many candidates and their committees already have such a language, were just suggesting this as a way for candidates who have a very difficult time figuring out who is bared under section 1.26 to have a way out if they do have those documents, and if the contributor signs it, and then, it is, it shows that they performed their due diligence. >> and the contributor signs it? >> yes, it is the distributor who signs it. >> under the state law, anybody who makes campaign contributions over $100 has to provide certain information including address and occupation. and so, candidates generally use contributor cards so that they can fill out this information. which they must report to us when they do their campaign reporting. so this, this is where this statement would appear on that card that the donor actually fills out. >> this is always, very tricky. i said that this is an

executive director who holds some city contracts and i don't write any checks and i have seen in the past unwhitingly and knowingly that the executive director's partner, who shares a joint checking account is very excited about that candidate and if you can, jack played that out for me and writes the check and actually did not check in with the executive director, who holds the contract, obviously to see, the officer of the agency, is that executive director, or is that particular person who holds that contract for the city? >> responsible for that? >> how is that? >> the people who can make contributions does not make it to the spouse of someone who can't and in general, for someone who has a joint account, that is used for the specific and whatever you want the partner to make the

contribution and provided that the person, does not sign the check. and the signature to the check is the contributor. >> yes. yeah. and it that is a red flag, and you know, the people say so and so made a contribution on the check and it was actually the spouse, and you can avoid that trouble by using a separate account. but the way that the law is written, we ought to require it. >> and i wonder since the underlying problems to make sure that you don't have people who are engaged in any kind of contracts, would do that. whether it might not be a good idea to make the language mandatory to begin with, rather than just to suggest it. and then we have got an assurance of due diligence and beyond the assurance of due

diligence, we have the assurance that contracts that, contributions are not being made by people who should not be making the contributions. >> well, we actually talked with some interested person. and what we were told was, if you made this mandatory, there are, you would dissway contribution and so the candidate would not get the contributions, if you made it mandatory. is what we were told. >> well, there are some contributions that we wanted to sway. >> well, there are contributions that are prohibited. >> yeah, that is what we are trying to do to make sure that those contributions don't get made, and are disswayed and so the idea that having the difficulty processing the idea while this is going to... >> dissway the contributions is

my whole point. >> we want to sway. >> and the feeling was that the feel were just not contribute to the candidates generally. >> yeah. >> and it would be too much work. >> other thing, on the grassroots candidates, and it would be simple for them to, i guess create forms for people to fill out and so that would be another aspect of it. >> i think that is more persuasive, in terms of just someone who make their way up. >> we can decide if it is going to be mandatory. my feeling is that if we made it optional now, i suspect that most candidates will do it at some point in the future and we can use that as a argument to make it mandatory.

>> okay. >> we work on any complaint violation and we are a complaint based, yes. >> and the only way that we know that someone willfully or unwillingly violated this is if someone complaints to you telling you so and so is actually a contractor and they made a contribution. and that is the only way this we would really know. >> right. and the forms that are filed for this particular when the contracts are made by the city officials we don't have a paper form and it is on the list of things to do, but we really only one move one a year and so that is a few years down the line and a more searchable data base and it will be better for the people to figure out and in the p